Ads
As you know, I have always said I wouldn't ever take direct ads for anything that I might ever review. I stand by that. I never will. There are plenty of magazines and newspapers that already do that and to my mind there's no point in creating another advertorial vehicle.
I was asked recently, however, by a tiny independent company (which sounds very interesting indeed - a great new concept - but isn't, frankly, something I would ever review) whether I took "small ads."
Well, I guess it looks a bit like it because Google Adwords are so clever with their computer-generated adverts, tailoring them to fit something I'm writing about without either me or the original advertiser knowing, but it really is merely the Wonders of Modern Science.
There is one way that this new company could advertise on the site which I believe would not compromise me at all - and might be of benefit to local people since it is so very niche. But I won't do it without your say so.
That is "targeted" Google Adwords. It's where a company can ask specifically to advertise on a certain site; ie. to join the little list of ads in brown down the left-hand column of the page in my case.
I tend to take the view that there would always be enough random-ness within the system that it would not impinge on anything I said, and that there would always be other Adwords adverts to fill in any gaps I created by being 'rude' about a company and losing their custom if I enabled this option. I don't really see any big harm in doing so. But I want to ask your opinion, guys. Would YOU feel compromised by my enabling people to say they specifically wanted to advertise in the GoogleAds section of my blog?
Let's face it, GoogleAds are never going to mean megabucks, but the odd pennies here and there all add up. I might even be able to afford a cup of tea and a bun in George of Greenwich by Christmas (my little dream... ;-) )
I was asked recently, however, by a tiny independent company (which sounds very interesting indeed - a great new concept - but isn't, frankly, something I would ever review) whether I took "small ads."
Well, I guess it looks a bit like it because Google Adwords are so clever with their computer-generated adverts, tailoring them to fit something I'm writing about without either me or the original advertiser knowing, but it really is merely the Wonders of Modern Science.
There is one way that this new company could advertise on the site which I believe would not compromise me at all - and might be of benefit to local people since it is so very niche. But I won't do it without your say so.
That is "targeted" Google Adwords. It's where a company can ask specifically to advertise on a certain site; ie. to join the little list of ads in brown down the left-hand column of the page in my case.
I tend to take the view that there would always be enough random-ness within the system that it would not impinge on anything I said, and that there would always be other Adwords adverts to fill in any gaps I created by being 'rude' about a company and losing their custom if I enabled this option. I don't really see any big harm in doing so. But I want to ask your opinion, guys. Would YOU feel compromised by my enabling people to say they specifically wanted to advertise in the GoogleAds section of my blog?
Let's face it, GoogleAds are never going to mean megabucks, but the odd pennies here and there all add up. I might even be able to afford a cup of tea and a bun in George of Greenwich by Christmas (my little dream... ;-) )
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
11:40
17 Comments:
I would say go for it. I don't understand why people have such a problem with ads. It's not like you are forcing us to click on a link, much less actually buy anything from any advertised sites.....
Absolutely, go ahead. In fact I would rather see a targeted ad than one that is more or less irrelevant. I may even click on it to contribute to your coffee fund.
Hey hey! Of course I'm not allowed to ASK you to click...
My big problem with ads is that I don't believe that a magazine can carry an advertisement for, say, a restaurant, then come up with a totally objective review of the place.
I don't really think that it works in the same way as AdWords which is why I've chosen it over other forms of advertising. Luckily for me, this isn't my day job (though from the amount of time I fritter here one might be forgiven to think that it is) so I'm not dependent on revenue, which is a comforting thing (especially given the rate per click!!!)
Thanks for the support, guys...
You have my vote, we know you well enough by now to realise that you will not be compromised.
Go for it I say :-)
Absolutely. Go for it! Promise me one thing, though: whoever it is that's asked to advertise - if their service ever began to plummet, you'd still be prepared to put the boot in.
Promise.
No point in turning down revenue - if they've asked to run an ad, it's obviously because they believe you're attracting a readership which has value to them.
If - and of course, it's a big if - they have any common sense they'll recognise that your readership only exists because of your perceived independence and objectivity (oh, and trenchant opinions ...). Once that perception of independence is lost, then much of the attraction of your opinions and site is gone.
In terms of the objectivity of reviews in print magazines, I can only speak from my own experience of them: not restaurants, but certainly writing reviews in paid-for media, including where the suppliers were (potential) advertisers.
I was always prepared to cover a product in order to keep our ad sales teams happy, as long as it was a product of interest to our readers anyway. I was never even slightly tempted to skew a review because of advertising.
In part, this was easy because we had fairly effective Chinese walls between editorial and sales (they were only told about manufacturers' participation in comparative testing - and never the results - after the reviews were written), reasonably strong management support for editorial independence, and an editor who would deflect any flak that did arrive away from the writer.
However, it also depended on journalistic integrity. I grant you, that's often seen as an oxymoron - but most of us at least try. We probably all have a price - but I at least have never been bid up high enough....
On the flip side of this, the sheer range and number of high-quality eateries in the local area apparent from reading Meridian magazine always amazes me.... At least it's useful as a reminder of what's available.
John
Without a shadow of a doubt you should accept. If you're committed to objectivity despite the presence of adverts then there's no issue.
Let the company take the ad. If it doesn't work for them, they'll soon drop it.
Anyway, would we have ever noticed had you not asked? I doubt it.
I also used to work for a magazine. While we did not let ad revenue influence reviews, we did it let influence all other parts of the magazine. "Buyers guides" are the worst place for this. Need some extra massaging to get a client to commit? Talk them up in a buyer's guide.
Our magazine wasn't known for its beauty content, so we were especially keen to encourage lucrative beauty contracts. We snuck in editorial mentions absolutely everywhere. Cover models always wore the make up we wanted them to wear. Mind they didn't actually wear that make-up, we just said they did. The argument was make-up artists always used such a huge variety of products, it was impossible to pin one down. In all likelihood they had used the product that got the mention.
This was all in New York, so I can't say for certain it happens in England. I would be shocked if it didn't, however. I read every magazine with a highly critical eye. The local glossies make this dead easy with favourable reviews often facing the restaurant's ad. I wouldn't be surprised if the restaraunts wrote the reviews themselves.
As for your ads, we block them, so I can't really comment. I don't mind what you do. I think you're committed to staying independent, and that will keep me coming back. That and your funny local history stories.
That's precisely WHY I asked you. I may be naive but if I saw someone who said they didn't take specific ads and then I found out that they did - no matter how 'innocent' the circumstances - then I'd be pretty hacked off. If I tell you the truth now, I don't have any skeletons to be discovered later(unless you count the incident with the bicycle repair kit and the body glitter, but that's all behind me now... ;-) )
Seriously, folks, thank you for your support. I appreciate it...
Oh - and Andrekabu - thanks for the vote of confidence - glad the not-entirely-accurate-don't-quote-me-in-an-exam local history pieces hit the spot. I like writing them best...
I've just had a terrible thought! I do hope the company that wants the ad isn't McDonalds Greenwich.
In which case, I'll never visit your site again!
Damn! I've been caught out....
I just clicked on an ad on your site for the first time. Enjoy your coffee safe in the knowledge that I contributed at least 0.001 pence towards it :-)
Whahay! Cheers mate!
Though I now have my eye on something bigger than coffee (see Jack Cade's Cavern, today...)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home